Amended RTI vs Participatory Democracy

 Relevance: Mains: G.S paper II: Indian Polity: Governance 

Context

• The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill passed by Parliament recently threatens to strike at the core of the right to information (RTI) and undermines the institution of the Central Information Commission (CIC).

Significace of RTI

• The RTI Act, 2005 empowers the citizen to question the secrecy and abuse of power practised in governance.
• It is through the information commissions at the central and state levels that access to such information is provided.
• This information can be regarded as a public good, for it is relevant to the interests of citizens and is a crucial pillar for the functioning of a transparent and vibrant democracy.
• The information obtained not only helps in making government accountable but alse useful for other purposes which would serve the overall interests of the society.
• Every year, around six million applications are filed under the RTI Act, making it the most extensively used sunshine legislation globally.
• These applications seek information on a range of issues, from holding the government accountable for delivery of basic rights and entitlements to questioning the highest offices of the country.
• Using the RTI Act, people have sought information that governments would not like to reveal as it may expose corruption, human rights violations, and wrongdoings by the state.
• The access to information about policies, decisions and actions of the government that affect the lives of citizens is an instrument to ensure accountability.
• The Supreme Court has, in several judgments, held that the RTI is a fundamental right flowing from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee to citizens the freedom of speech and expression and the right to life, respectively.

Amendments proposed in the bill

• The RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 amends Sections 13, 15 and 27 of the RTI Act, 2005
• The first amends Section 15 of the RTI Act and replaces the statutorily fixed term of five years for the CIC with a term to be decided by the government through rules made under the law.
• The same clause also removes the parity between the ICs and ECs by having salaries, allowances, and terms and conditions of service determined by rules framed to this effect by the union government.
• The amendment will empower the central government to prescribe through rules the tenure, salaries, allowances and other terms of service of the chief and other information commissioners at the central and state levels.
• This would undermine the autonomy and independence of the institution of the information commissions and hinder the effective implementation of the RTI as enshrined in the act.
• There are two caveats in the proposed amendment:

• • first, the salaries, allowances, and terms and conditions of service cannot be varied to the disadvantage of ICs after appointment, and
  • second, ICs appointed before the bill becomes law will continue to be governed by the RTI Act as it stood before the amendment.

Government’s justification for amendment

• Information commissions perform different functions compared to Election Commissions therefore same status cannot be granted
• Executives will have much greater say in the terms and conditions of service of the ICs, but that cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that there will be no independence of the ICs.
• The provision of the RTI Act governing the removal of ICs is not affected by this amendment and the rules cannot be changed to cut short the tenure of any one IC without falling afoul of the main RTI Act as also Article 14 of the Constitution

Critics about the amendment

• The reason given for amendment was that ECs and ICs have different set of work. That is, no doubt, true, but in no way does it justify why ICs should not enjoy the same status as ECs.
• It also fails to address the basic reason as to why this provision exists in the first place, that ICs, given the nature of their work, ought to enjoy the same status as ECs.
• This was keeping in mind the constitutional status of the right to information, which enjoys the same constitutional recognition as the right to vote.
• The amendment appears to be another manifestation of the form of “coercive federalism” seemingly practised by the central government by infringing upon the powers of the respective states, and is therefore undemocratic.
• This would have serious implications for the credibility of the institution of the information commissioner in the future, as vital to making governance in a democracy accountable and transparent in its functioning.
• The idea of democracy that the ruling party seems to be practising is hinged upon treating citizens as passive subjects.
• The current government is trying to diminish the role of citizens to passive recipients of controlled, selective, and distorted information, thereby reducing citizens to subjects.
• Subjects are not supposed to ask questions of their rulers and effectively blocking access to information reduces this possibility.
• Another fallout is the adverse effect on investigative journalism, which has used RTI as a tool to unearth the truth.
• Such dilution would further insulate the government—which is anyway keen on ensuring a pliable media that acts as its amplifier—from probing journalism.

Summary

• The RTI emerged through mass movement, and its continuance and deepening would also hinge on its use as a form of collective action to ensure accountability.
• Indeed, there have been several instances of the spontaneous use of the RTI by individual citizens (apart from social movements), which only goes to validate the spirit of the RTI.
• Hundreds of RTI activists have been murdered, assaulted, harassed or threatened. Such sacrifices are difficult to sustain at the level of the individual in the face of relentless systemic assaults.
• While the union government’s purported justification for the RTI Bill makes no sense whatsoever, some of the fears about the bill’s impact may also be exaggerated.

• • For one, the rules have not yet been framed, so it is not clear how this might actually affect the functioning of the Central Information Commission and state information commissions
  • For another, the clauses relating to removal have not been amended and the amendment still mandates that the salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service cannot be varied to the ICs’ disadvantage.
• That said, the real fear with the amendments have to do with the manner in which the union government has tried to push them through Parliament.
• The absence of a real justification for this amendment, failure to address the real deficiencies in the RTI institutions, and the absence of any public participation in the process, all speak to a larger fear, that of a government which will do as it pleases.
• The present appointments have been exempted from changes under the proposed amendments.
• The process to roll back these amendments and restore the right to information cannot be achieved without mobilising the masses in defence of their hard-won rights